Skip to comments.
Why Did The White House Deny Any Agreement With IRAN After It Was Reported By THE NEW YORK TIMES?
10/21/2012
| self
Posted on 10/21/2012 11:07:04 AM PDT by timlilje
Because he will announce it during the Debate tomorrow!!!!
TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: irandeniestalks; nucleariran; nuclearirantalks; whdeniestalks; whirantalks
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
To: timlilje
Sure...will Iran also promise to immediately pull all its special ops troops out of Syria, stop funding Hamas and Hezbollah, recognize Israel, and give amnesty to all of its gay citizens it has condemned to death?
21
posted on
10/21/2012 12:12:55 PM PDT
by
rfp1234
To: timlilje
This agreement?
We don't support Israeli attack, US tells Iran Sept. 3rd 2012
0bama sent a letter to Tehran assuring them that the U.S. will do nothing to help Israel. That takes that off of the table removing a big worry for them that might have made them think twice. Iran is good to go now with 0bama's blessing.
22
posted on
10/21/2012 12:42:58 PM PDT
by
TigersEye
(dishonorabledisclosure.com - OPSEC (give them support))
To: The Sons of Liberty; timlilje
Im not sure he could do this at the last minute anyway, because I think it would need the consent of Congress. Weren’t the sanctions imposed after a vote by the legislature? So I don’t think that he could simply undo them.
23
posted on
10/21/2012 12:52:24 PM PDT
by
livius
To: timlilje
LOL. No way. The Obama administration made a major mistake by leaking the story. Israel is pissed off because they were not kept informed. Agreeing to a one on one meeting bypasses the existing multilateral approach (5P+1), which will piss off our allies who are helping us with santions.
And it raises questions as to what the preconditions will be for such a meeting and what concessions will be offered by either side.
The Obama administration stepped into it big time because now they have to walk it back after leaking it to the NYT. So the question will be is the NYT making this stuff up or is the Obama adminsitration lying?
Axelrod and Plouffe made a major miscalculation. Obama will distance himself from this at the debate.
24
posted on
10/21/2012 1:16:05 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: timlilje
Because he wants to attack Iran with Israel to win the election, and if Iran seems to be softening re sanctions, he has less justification for going to war.
25
posted on
10/21/2012 1:25:07 PM PDT
by
firebrand
(Beware of wishful thinking--the mousetrap of small minds.)
To: kabar
I read that Iran mumbled something about 1 on 1 talks possibly after the election. So the NYT maybe ran off half-cocked thinking that if it was said there were talks, it would reflect favorably on Odumbo. I think the NYT and possibly the administration were played by the Iranians, although I would think Amanutjob would want Odumbo reelected.
26
posted on
10/21/2012 1:52:11 PM PDT
by
visualops
(artlife.us)
To: visualops
I believe that Plouffe and/or Axelrod thought this would help Obama before tomorrow night's debate on foreign policy. It would help undermine Romney's charge that Obama has not dissuaded Iran from its nuclear program and show that Obama's policies are working. I have no doubt the WH leaked this story.
One big problem: Axelrod and Plouffe only see things thru the prism of domestic policitics. They didn't figure on the international repercussions. Here is what Michael Oren, Israel's Amb to the US:
We do not think Iran should be rewarded with direct talks, Mr. Oren said, rather that sanctions and all other possible pressures on Iran must be increased.
I don't think Jewish voters will appreciate these talks. Obama must now walk it back without losing face and hurting himself with the NYT and the rest of the liberal MSM.
27
posted on
10/21/2012 2:53:34 PM PDT
by
kabar
To: timlilje
Did Obama tell the mullahs he would have “more flexibility” after the election, as he did with Medvedev?
28
posted on
10/21/2012 3:23:59 PM PDT
by
Hotlanta Mike
(Resurrect the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC)...before there is no America!)
To: All
29
posted on
10/21/2012 3:29:16 PM PDT
by
musicman
(Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
To: livius
Hussein hasn’t abided by the laws he disagrees with, he has circumvented congress, and ignored The Constitution numerous times over the last four years. Moochelle even bragged about it!
30
posted on
10/21/2012 5:18:53 PM PDT
by
The Sons of Liberty
("Get that evil, foreign, muslim, usurping, gay commie bastard out of MY White House!" FUBO!)
To: livius
Im not sure he could do this at the last minute anyway, because I think it would need the consent of Congress. Werent the sanctions imposed after a vote by the legislature? So I dont think that he could simply undo them.
I hate to say it, but congress really has no ability to enforce sanctions. As with immigration, Obama can simply choose not to have our navy (of which he is commander in chief) simply not enforce trade restrictions. Any normal congress would immediately impeach him, but the democrats are he!! bent on crating a dictatorship and would block any attempt at usurping the usurper's powers.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-31 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson